How your proposals will be evaluated for this FW5850 class?

• Most of you have already submitted a single pdf file of your proposal to me by email (I presume).

• I will put them on the web and email you the location of all proposals from your group by November 21st.

• Now you will review (as an ad hoc reviewer) all the proposals from your group except your own.

• You will write one page review for each proposal in your group along with your rating and email me all reviews as a single MS word file by December 1 st , 2005.

• Your advisors and I will review them too!

• All reviews will be anonymous

Evaluation Criteria

• Intellectual merit – How important this proposal is for advancement of knowledge?

– Qualification of PI and quality of proposal?

– Creative and original concepts? – How well conceived and organized is this activity?

– Sufficient resources available for this research?

• Broader impacts – Advance discovery and understanding – Can promote teaching and research integration – Diversity (gender, ethnicity, disability, geographical), if any * – Infrastructure development* – Dissemination of information obtained – What is the benefit to society?

ALL CRITERIA MAY NOT APPLY FOR EACH PROPOSAL!

Focus more on the contents (summary, description) than the format!

* Not important for your evaluation

Panel meetings on December 6 and 8, 2005

• I will forward all reviews that I receive for each proposal to one of your group members (naturally other than you).

• That chosen person (the panel member) will prepare a panel summary with general topic, positive and negative aspects and final rating of the proposal.

• On December 6, we will meet in the atrium area outside G002.

• There will be two tables for panel meeting, one per group • Each proposal will get ten minutes discussion (a bell will ring every ten minutes) • You will go to other table when your own proposal is being discussed as shown in the next slide. • The panel report will go into my file and you will select a Panel leader from members within your own group to read the summary to whole class on December 8 th , the last day of this class.

ENGINEERS

Crystal

Biologists CPJ

Baron

Foresters

Timeline for your 2005 FW5850 proposals

• Final proposals submitted on or before November 17th • Your reviews of other people’s proposals are due on or before December 1st (send me an email) – Reviews should be critical and anonymous – Rate • each proposal

Outstanding, Very good, Good, fair, poor, not competitive

• Remember there is a thanksgiving break week in between Nov 21st-25th • Summary for one proposal each prepared by December 6 th • Panel meeting on December 6th • Final presentations December 8th • This will be our last class.

Panel presentation (December 8

th

2005) • You will select one leader from your group who will read all reports from your group after panel meeting to the whole class • Each proposal will get ~five minutes • Each report will have a specific final rating.

• Then you will enjoy your Xmas vacation!

Any questions?

HORT603 - Grants and Grantsmanship: Professor David Rhodes, Purdue Characteristics of a Good Grant Proposal It should have new/novel/innovative ideas. It should be likely to advance an area of science. It should fill critical gaps in knowledge of a specific area. It should be "science-driven". It should be working toward a long-term goal. It should have a thoughtful and up-to-date literature review. It should have well stated questions. It should have preliminary data which support the feasibility of the research. It should be well written and succinct and follow the program guidelines.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Characteristics of Poor Grant Proposals

•

Proposed research has already been done by others.

•

Derivative research (research may be viewed as a repetition of what has already been accomplished in other systems).

•

Contingent aims.

•

Dead-end research.

•

Technique searching for a problem.

•

Poor justification.

•

PI or PIs lack necessary technical expertise.

•

Not using the most direct approach.

•

Wrong choice of experimental system.

•

Too broad and overly ambitious.

•

Too narrow in scope.

•

No preliminary data.

•

Lacks sufficient details for adequate evaluation.

•

Poorly written and presented.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Top ten reasons why funding is normally not awarded 1. Lack of new or original ideas.

2. Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan.

3. Lack of knowledge of published relevant work.

4. Lack of experience in the essential methodology.

5. Uncertainty concerning future directions.

6. Questionable reasoning in experimental approach.

7. Absence of an acceptable rationale.

8. Unrealistically large/small amount of work.

9. Lack of sufficient experimental detail.

10. Uncritical approach.

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Funding trends in United States

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

Agency FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002

DOD NIH NASA DOE 37,209 37,779 38,848 35,510 35,349 35,783 37,238 37,430 38,532 39,109 42,743 50,134 8,977 9,6245 9,891 10,474 10,762 11,425 12,217 13,097 14,943 17,125 19,710 22,822 8,124 8,544 8,815 9,406 9,459 9,432 9,352 9,884 9,727 9,778 9,925 10,301 7,339 8,133 7,444 6,771 6,416 6,273 6,217 6,288 7,002 7,232 7,744 8,122 NSF USDA Commerce Transportation EPA Interior 1,893 1,972 2,014 2,243 2,396 2,391 2,424 2,568 2,784 2,854 3,279 3,527 1,391 1,519 1,467 1,528 1,487 1,488 1,556 1,553 1,656 1,693 1,959 2,139 537 583 792 1,022 1,118 966 964 1,081 1,076 1,096 1,201 1,354 411 459 620 621 493 643 621 497 649 641 588 708 666 554 668 601 482 571 612 595 591 676 672 609 696 692 627 643 645 562 747 609 631 853 702 673

Total 68,747 71,941 72,928 71,074 70,948 71,206 73,934 76,106 80,170 83,346

Numbers in millions ($) http://www.hort.purdue.edu/rhodcv/hort652n/ho00005.htm

91,371 103,694

• • • • • • • • • • •

Where to go to see information on funding agencies

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Department of Energy, Office of Energy Research (DOE) Department of Transportation (DOT) Department of Health and Human Services Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Science Foundation (NSF) (HHS) Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (USDA CSREES) http://www.admin.mtu.edu/research/sprot/funding/federal.html

Just as a curiosity..

• Select an agency that you think will be best for your research area and explore how will you modify the proposal preparation and submission process than what we did for this class taking NSF as a model.

• If you wish, submit one page to me by next class (Optional and extra credit)

USDA-NRI

• http://www.csrees.usda.gov/fo/funding.cfm

• • • • • • • • • • • Focus areas: Agricultural & Food Biosecurity Agricultural Systems Animals & Animal Products Biotechnology & Genomics Economics & Commerce Families, Youth & Communities Food, Nutrition & Health Natural Resources & Environment Pest Management Plants & Plant Products Technology & Engineering

FY2005 RFA

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • http://www.csrees.usda.gov/funding/rfas/pdfs/05_nri.pdf

Program Opportunities 20.0 Animal and Plant Biosecurity 22.1 Agricultural Plants and Environmental Adaptation 23.1 Managed Ecosystems 25.0 Soil Processes 26.0 Watershed Processes and Water Resources 28.0 Air Quality 31.0 Bioactive Food Components for Optimal Health 31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity 32.0 Food Safety 32.1 Epidemiological Approaches for Food Safety 41.0 Animal Reproduction 42.0 Animal Growth and Nutrient Utilization 43.0 Animal Genomics 43.1 Animal Genome Reagent and Tool Development 44.0 Animal Protection 45.0 Functional Genomics of Agriculturally Important Organisms 51.2 Integrative Biology of Arthropods and Nematodes 51.3 Arthropod and Nematode Gateways to Genomics 51.8 Biology of Plant-Microbe Associations 51.9 Biology of Weedy and Invasive Plants 52.1 Plant Genome, Bioinformatics, and Genetic Resources 52.2 Genetic Processes and Mechanisms of Crop Plants 52.4 Applied Plant Genomics CAP 53.0 Developmental Processes of Crop Plants 54.3 Agricultural Plant Biochemistry 61.0 Agricultural Markets and Trade 62.0 Rural Development 66.0 Enhancing the Prosperity of Small Farms and Rural Agricultural Communities 71.1 Improving Food Quality and Value 71.2 Biobased Products and Bioenergy Production Research 75.0 Nanoscale Science and Engineering for Agriculture and Food Systems

Purpose and Priorities

• The purpose of the USDA-NRI Program is to support research, extension, and education grants that address key problems of national, regional, and multistate importance in

sustaining all components of agriculture

(farming, ranching, forestry including urban and agroforestry, aquaculture, rural communities, human nutrition, processing, etc.).

Type of applications

• New • Resubmitted • Renewal • Resubmitted renewal • Research grant • Conference • AREA – (Agricultural Research Enhancement awards) – Postdoctoral – New Investigator

Strengthening Awards

• Small institutions • Limited success • Sabbatical • seed grants • Equipment grants

USDA has a number of programs

• •

31.5 Human Nutrition and Obesity

Investigators are encouraged to contact the National Program Leaders, Etta Saltos ( [email protected]

; telephone: (202) 401-5178) or Susan Welsh ( [email protected]

; telephone: (202) 720-5544) with questions about the suitability of applications.

•

Standard Research Grants for this program will not exceed $500,000 (including indirect costs) for project periods of 2-4 years. Integrated Project Grants for this program are not likely to exceed $1.5 million for project periods up to 4 years. The total amount of support available for this program will be approximately $8 million.

•

Program Deadline: Applications must be received by 5:00 P.M., Eastern Time, June 15, 2005.

• This crosscutting program addresses the complex problem of obesity prevention. The program seeks to support applications that integrate at least two of the three CSREES supported functions research, education and extension/outreach.

THIS IS JUST AN EXAMPLE….

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

A bunch of forms to be filled and 15 copies to be mailed

Proposal Cover Page (Form CSREES-2002) Table of Contents Project Summary (Form CSREES-2003) Response to Previous Review (if applicable) Project Description (see instructions for page limitations) 18 pages References to Project Description Facilities and Equipment Key Personnel (vitae and publications list) Collaborative Arrangements (including letters of support) Conflict-of-Interest List (Form CSREES-2007) Results from Prior NRI Support (if applicable) Budget (Form CSREES-2004) Budget Narrative Matching (if required) Current and Pending Support (Form CSREES-2005) Assurance Statement (s) (Form CSREES-2008) Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (Form CSREES-2006) Appendices to Project Description Personal Data on Project Director (s) (Page B of Form CSREES-2002)

Evaluation criteria

1. Scientific merit of the application for research, extension and/or education 2. Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities 3. Planning and administration of the proposed project 4. Relevance of the proposal to improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture

Scientific merit

1. novelty, uniqueness, and originality 2. conceptual adequacy of hypothesis or research question 3. clarity and delineation of objectives 4. adequacy of description of the undertaking 5. suitability and feasibility of methodology 6. demonstration of feasibility through preliminary data 7. probability of success of project

Qualifications

Qualifications of proposed project personnel and adequacy of facilities:

1. training and awareness of previous and alternative approaches, performance record and/or potential for future accomplishments 2. time allotted for systematic attainment of objectives 3. Institutional experience and competence in subject area 4. adequacy of available or obtainable support personnel, facilities and instrumentation

Relevance?

Relevance of the project to long-range improvements in and sustainability of U.S. agriculture 1. documentation that the research is directed towards a current or likely future problem in U.S. agriculture 2. development of basic research ideas towards practical application

Rating

• • • • •

Each reviewer is asked to rate each proposal overall as either: excellent very good good fair poor

Panel recommendations

The following categories are generally used to rank proposals by the Panel: • Outstanding *** • High priority for funding ** • Medium priority for funding • Low priority for funding • Some scientific merit • Do not fund Proposals are also ranked in each category mainly in first two-three Success rate 20-25%